civilized ku # 410 ~ surprise

toilet, tile, & "stains" ~ Montreal, CA. • click to embiggenIt has come to my attention that a certain picture making friend of mine has begun to whine about or, perhaps more accurately, lament the homogeneous state of the world - a sameness to all things that has enveloped the planet like a deadening blanket.

Included in this homogeneous-osity is the state of they-all-look-alike pictures as found on certain websites. What this picture maker longs for - at least as it applies to shedding his personal homogeneous doldrums, picture viewing wise - is to be surprised. The implication behind that desire seems to be that picture makers should stop what they're doing now and get out there and do something different.

For the average "serious" amateur, that advice is most often very well received - they are constantly driven by trying their best to make their next "greatest hit" picture. A stand alone image that by its technical virtuosity and/or its idyllic/iconic referent hits you eye like a big pizza pie. Now, that'sa picture making amore.

But my question is this - why is it that "serious" amateur picture makers have little or no appreciation for bodies of work - work that evidences a protracted exploration of a thoughtful and cohesive vision? You know, like ... say, those engaged in the other visual arts.

Has anyone ever viewed the work of a painter who has churned out one different style of painting after another? Each one different from the last? Bouncing from realism to impressionism to abstract to Renaissance classic to postmodern .... ?

All in the name of satisfying the viewer's urge to be surprised?

civilized ku # 408-09 ~ just one word (there's a great future in it)

Fence, red signs, man on cellphone ~ Old Montreal, CA. • click to embiggenYesterday, I mentioned that, creative inspiration input-wise, I was near bursting at the seams and, as an example, when thinking about this entry, one of the very first things that came to mind was this short clip.

Why that clip? Well, simply put, this entry is about plastic or plasticity. Something that, back in Ben's and Mr. McGuire's day, was headed for a great future in the arts.

During my recent conversation with Joel Meyerowitz (at the Pioneers Of Color exhibit), I asked him about his feelings regarding that which was his former print medium - the venerable C-print, aka-chromogenic print - versus his current print making media of choice, the pigmented ink print medium, aka - inkjet prints. I prefaced my query with the statement that I had long admired his early - 1970s-1990s - C-prints. Not the pictures (although I certainly do admire the images), but, specifically, the quality (look and feel) of the prints as beautiful objects in and of themselves.

His answer was very interesting. Joel said that he considered his early C-prints to be like daguerreotypes of the color printing art/craft. They were, in his words, perfect indices of the era from which they came. In fact, he had been told that the Pioneers of Color exhibit was perfectly indexical.

At this point, he felt compelled to state that the words "indices" and "indexical" are, in fact, artspeak - a language with which he is not particularly comfortable and of which he is not particularly fond.

Nevertheless, moving on, he went on to state that now, with the ability to make HQ scans of his early color negatives (especially his 8×10 stuff) coupled with the superior color gamut of inkjet printing devices/materials, his earlier work has revealed such an expanded range of colors (and color subtleties) that the world's plasticity is revealed in a much more compelling and detailed manner*.

Joel waxed nearly poetic about the color that "was in the early materials but that, even with the best printing practices then available, nobody knew was there."

So, he didn't exactly say that C-prints were crap - prints that he also noted, "if I were lucky enough to sell one back then, well, how long they would last was anyone's guess" - but he left no doubt about the fact that the future is here and that, with the medium of photography, it's all about plastic.

FYI, here's an interesting bit about the large pigmented ink prints hanging in the PoC exhibit - when the subject of print longevity (200+ years for pigmented ink prints) came up, I asked if that was the reason why those prints were not exhibited under glass. Joel said that while they were not under glass, they were, in fact, protected by a surface laminate.

*that the world's plasticity is revealed in a much more compelling and detailed manner as the result of scanning early 8×10 color negative is something that I discovered when, a few years ago, I started scanning some of my (early 1980s) 8×10 color negatives - examples here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

Update on Thursday, March 4, 2010 at 12:55PM by gravitas et nugalis

And, lest I forget - plastic arts are defined as arts producing works or effects that are three-dimensional .... works to be viewed, as sculpture, architecture, painting, and the graphic arts, as distinguished from those involving writing or composing, as music or literature.

plasticity (in the pictorial arts) is defined as the quality of depicting space and form so that they appear three-dimensional.

It has been said that the medium of photography, in all of its plastic glory, is the perfect medium for rendering / capturing the world's plasticity - in this usage, plasticity is defined as marked by artificiality or superficiality. Consequently, and perhaps even logically, when the word "plasticity" is used as in the previous sentence, it functions as a double entendre.

Therefore, be forewarned - if someone comments on your pictures and states that they feel rather "plastic", don't immediately punch him/her in the mouth. Ask first for a definition, because it just might be meant as a compliment of the highest order.

ku # 680-82 ~ miscellanea

Bog detritus • click to embiggenSo I'm going through, via Bridge, my "finals" folder - pictures that are cooked and ready to go - looking for a picture that I had mis-labeled.

The very first thing that I noticed upon opening Bridge was that there are 2,210 items, aka - pictures, in the folder. Man, I had no idea that my "finals" count had reached that number. Truth be told, there might be a few clunkers in there but, even considering that unlikely possibility, that's still a lot of pictures.

Maybe its time to take a cue from Stephen Shore and his "lost" (no record exists) 1972 exhibition at Light Gallery wherein he exhibited 312 3×5 inch "drugstore" prints by gluing them to the walls in an even grid, 3 pictures high, running end-to-end, in no particular order.

The other thing I noticed after opening and printing the moldy-oldie triptych presented in this entry - made with either a Canon G3/4mp or G5/5mp P&S camera - was how beautifully they printed at a 13×39 inch size. The printed quality was virtually indistinguishable from a same size triptych print made from my Oly EP-1/E-3 files.

I mention this printing exercise because after reading about this unfortunate printing train wreck, I am happy as a clam that I have stuck with what works for me - Power Mac G5 / 1.8GHz + 4 GB RAM + OS 10.4.11 + CS3 + RawDeveloper 1.8.7 + Epson PRO7800 / ColorStylus 2200 + a to-hell-with-anymore-upgrades attitude.

civilized ku # 405-407 ~ inspiration? / copycat? / theft?

Around the kitchen ~ Sunday - February, 28, 2010 • Au Sable Forks, NY • click to embiggenThe recent dust up re: Copycat or Not?, which is all about one artist copying another artist - which is itself a variation on the ongoing brouhahas, re: artists appropriating commercially copyrighted works for the creation of "derivative" works - has spawned a new art conflagration, re: ad agency / commercial interests appropriating a fine artist's working "style" for use in advertising (see / read about an example HERE). A use that neither acknowledges or compensates the fine artist in any manner.

Not that there are not legitimate issues involved in almost all of these dust ups - some legal, some ethical, some a little or a lot of both) - but it does seems that it's all getting just a little bit nuts / out-of-hand.

In any event, when the artist Thomas Allen took the people at Cundari Advertising, Toronto,CA. (see link above) to task for their appropriation of his working style - which, BTW, itself owes a great deal of credit to all those pulp fiction cover illustrators from years gone by - for commercial purposes, the response from the agency Creative Director went like this ...

... Inspiration can come from anywhere. We were inspired by your technique just as you were inspired by the artists who painted the original pulp novel covers. So nobody is stealing anything from anybody.

IMO, that statement / rationalization is part true, part unadulterated CYA BS. However, what interests me most about it is the "true" part - the part about "Inspiration can come from anywhere". I suspect that, if it goes that far, the lawyers and the courts will determine the truth about whether anyone is stealing or not.

All that said, I have no problem whatsoever with the notion that inspiration can come from anywhere. The adage that "you are what you eat" is as true as such things get and, while the adage may have been coined to apply literally to the food you eat and its resultant effect on your body, I have always believed that it also applies in a figurative sense to one's mental and emotional life. Specifically and most definitely, in the case of "inspiration", to include one's creative life as well.

In an inverse application of the computer-age adage of "garbage in, garbage out", I have always operated on the principle, creative inspiration wise, that the better the input into my mind and psyche, the better my creative output will be. So, I have spent a lifetime in pursuit of seeking out and viewing / reading about (aka, "eating") the best possible input as evidenced by the output of "superior" artists (in any genre).

The net effect of this has been to find myself in a nearly constant state of creative / inspired arousal.

But, here's the thing about my state of arousal - the dictionary defines "inspired" to mean aroused, animated, or imbued with the spirit to do something and that's exactly how I feel. I continually have "the spirit to do something". Please note my emphasis on the word "something" because what I am inspired to do is NOT to copy, imitate, steal from, emulate, or appropriate the ideas and work of those who may have inspired me.

In fact, my mental / emotional library is so jammed packed with such a wide and diffuse array of inspirational "agitations" that I think I would, if I even tried, find it nearly impossible to sort it all out into a picture making M.O. that would make any sense. I'm afraid that if I did try I would end up suffering the same fate as Mr. Creosote - a person, creative inspiration intake wise, I am beginning to resemble (I wonder if I will be able to recognize that "waffer thin mint" when I see it).

All of that said, what I am always inspired to do is to get out there and do something, but not something that is necessarily or intentionally like anything that I have seen.

I picture what I picture because I have been inspired by the work of others to keep my eyes, my mind, my emotions, wide open to as many of the picture possibilities that surround me on a daily, no - make that hourly - basis. I picture what I picture in the manner in which I picture it because it is the way I see it, pure and simple.

Truth be told, I have come to modify my belief / operating principle when it comes to inspiration - I don't actually believe that you are what you eat unless, of course, you don't have a fully functioning brain. What I have come to understand, in the immortal words of Sleepy LaBeef - it ain't what you eat, it's the way how you chew it.

How about you? Any thoughts on "inspiration" and how it effects what you see and do?

civilized ku # 401-404 ~ the big snow

E4th Street snow ~ East Village - NY, NY • click to embiggen
Clinton St. intersection / Clinton St. snow ~ SoHo - NY, NY • click to embiggenSnowstorms in NYC are a winter wonderland to behold. The city and its inhabitants are quite literally transformed into a much softened and laid back state. It's really quite nice and very enjoyable.

I'm happy I was there last Thursday / Friday during the city's all-time one-day record snowfall.

civilized ku # 400 ~ less saltrimbancery for sure

Table with flowers and empty wine glass ~ Edwynn Houk Gallery - NY, NY • click to embiggenOn Monday's entry about the Pioneers of Color exhibit, "tom frost" (no link provided) asked ...

... Did you ever hear of Eugene Atget? or Walker Evans?

The question, which I must assume was laced with more than a dash of sarcasm considering that I have written extensively here on The Landscapist about both giants of the picturing making world, seems to be intended as a retort to my idea that the pioneers of color "challenged and redefined the notion of what was picture-worthy, subject / referent wise". "tom frost" went on to say that Atget and Evans work was "Not in color, obviously, but challenging and redefining the notion, most assuredly."

While I would not disagree entirely with mr. frost, I would suggest that he is playing a bit fast and loose with the facts. Consider this by John Szarkowski taken from the introduction to Walker Evans (MoMA catalog / exhibition, 1971):

... Without doubt, Evans' pictures have enlarged our sense of the usable Visual tradition, and have affected the way that we now see not only other photographs, but billboards, junkyards, postcards, gas stations, colloquial architecture, Main Streets, and the walls of rooms. Nevertheless Evans' work is rooted in the photography of the earlier past, and constitutes a reaffirmation of what had been photography's central sense of purpose and aesthetic: the precise and lucid description of significant fact ... there were hundreds of others who used photography in a similar spirit. (Atget himself differs from many other excellent photographers of his time because of the quality of his eye and mind, not because of the novelty of his conception.) The basic vocabulary and function of undiluted photography were universally visible for all to see, its exceptional use demanded only an exceptional artist.

That said, and even conceding that Evans and Atget may have ventured to some extent into new / untried ground, picture-worthiness / subject / referent wise, I have a great deal of difficulty equating that trip to the one undertaken by William Eggleston (most prominent, amongst others). To this day, the pictures in his book, Eggleston's Guide, are still regarded by some critics and many picture makers as "Perfectly banal, perhaps. Perfectly boring, certainly." - art critic Hilton Kramer's respond to Szarkowski's assertion that Eggleston's picture were "perfect" - a criticism not often heard about Evans' "artless-art" approach to picture making.

IMO, and that of many others, it was Evans' practice and advocacy for more "lucid description", "undiluted photography", and, conversely, less saltimbancery in picture making that was the hallmark of his and Atget's work and that set them and their work up as very significant influences on future generations of picture makers.

more copycat?

Cars and drivers/passengers ~ © Andrew Bush (left) and ©Joel Meyerowitz (right) • click to embiggenSince I've been around for quite some time, picture viewing wise, it came as no surprise that I was familiar with about 80-85% of the pictures on exhibit in the Pioneers of Color exhibit at the Edwynn Houk Gallery. In fact, I had seen many of them "in the flesh" in the late 1970s when they were often spread out on my studio floor as I was helping Sally Eauclaire (you can find my name in the Acknowledgments) with her seminal 1981 book / exhibit, The New Color Photography.

However, one picture in particular, one with which I was not familiar, was a Meyerowitz picture from the mid-1970s - a picture made from his moving car on the NYS Thurway. My immediate reaction upon seeing it was, "hey, what's that guy's name who exhibited his pictures, taken from his moving car, at the Yossi Milo Gallery a year or 2 ago?" My friend, who is not a picture maker but nevertheless an occasional gallery-crawling companion, offered no answer.

I remembered the exhibit at the Milo Gallery because I just flat out liked the pictures and one in particular - titled: Family traveling northwest at 63 mph on Interstate 244 near Yale Avenue in Tulsa, Oklahoma, at approximately 4:15 p.m. on the last day of 1991 - is on my got-to-have-that-picture life-list.

Call me a victim of classic racial stereotyping, but when I first saw that picture, I damn near busted a gut L(ing)OL as a medley composed of the theme songs from Sanford and Son, The Jeffersons, and Good Times (dyn-o-mite!) spontaneously burst into my head. There might have even been a soft echo of Shaft rattling around in there somewhere as well. With apologies to Jimmi Nuffin, I just couldn't help myself.

In any event, what struck me, re: the Meyerowitz picture, was the recent Burdeny / Sze Tsung Leong "copycat or not" dust up.

To my knowledge, there has never been any indication of any issue about the extreme similarity between the Meyerowitz From the Car work and the Andrew Bush Vector Portraits work. Meyerowitz' pictures were made a decade-and-a-half prior to Bush's and I have no indication that Bush was influenced in any way by - or even aware of - the Meyerowitz From the Car series. However, the similarity between the works is remarkable.

See more of the Andrew Bush Vector Portraits (aka, Drive) work HERE. Unfortunately, I can find no indication that the Meyerowitz From the Car series, other than bits and pieces / here and there, is anywhere to be found on the web.

ku # 678-79~ beginning to end

Driving to NYC • click to embiggenDuring my recent drive to NYC, I started out in snowfall and finished in even more snowfall. Pictured here is (close to) the start in the Adk mountains (within a few miles of the source of the Hudson River) and (close to) the finish on the George Washington Bridge over the "mighty" Hudson River and into NYC.